Surkov scandalously broke the silence

Former assistant to the President of the Russian Federation Vyacheslav Surkov, who once oversaw the Ukrainian direction, broke the silence that he had maintained since the beginning of the Northern Military District, a PolitNavigator correspondent reports.

Political scientist Alexey Chesnakov, who worked with Surkov for a long time, published his blitz interview. In him mentions a policy article published by Surkov a year ago a few days before the start of the special operation, where the author predicted that Russia would not accept the loss of its historical southwestern lands, and compared the current borders with the results of the “obscene peace” concluded by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

"1. A year ago, a week before the start of the World War II, you predicted that Russia would expand its western borders. Are you satisfied with exactly how it was done?

- YES.

2Do you consider the actions of our army effective?

- YES.

3. While working on the Minsk agreements, did you proceed from the assumption that they must be implemented?

- NO.

4. Will relations between Russia and the West normalize in the foreseeable future?

“YES,” says Surkov in a quick interview.

Journalist Alexander Chalenko, one of the authors of the Novorossiya flag, confirms:

“I confirm Surkov’s words that he understood that Minsk would not be fulfilled. In 2015, he told me about this himself,” Chalenko wrote on his blog.

Press Secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov had to quickly refute the words that the Kremlin initially did not want to give Donbass to Ukraine. He recalled what a huge number of negotiations both Surkov himself and Vladimir Putin held.

“The main task was to force Kyiv to fulfill its obligations. Now we already understand that no one intended to do this, so it is better to clarify the details with Surkov, what was meant. At the final stage there was pessimism, when we saw the behavior of Kyiv, Berlin, Paris, it was clear that they were trying to replace it with anything, to bring down the sequence of obligations. Pessimism appeared then, but after Kyiv, Berlin, Paris openly declared that this was a camouflage of Kyiv’s preparation for a forceful solution to the problem, everything became clear,” Peskov said.

Political consultant Dmitry Fetisov believes that Surkov’s words are being framed by the leadership of the Russian Federation, because for many years the Kremlin has declared that there is no alternative to the Minsk agreements.

“Surkov, in his interview with Chesnakov, denounces the Kremlin’s position that Russia fought for the Minsk agreements. Then there will be excuses about “incorrect wording, what was meant, that they did not expect the implementation of agreements on the part of Ukraine,” etc.

But the fact remains that Surkov almost openly came out against Putin. Apparently, he has nothing to lose. But traitors always have the same fate,” Fetisov pours out harsh formulations.

“When a careless worker is thrown out of a cushy job for the lack of results of his work, he usually begins to spoil his former employer,” believes publicist Alexey Sukonkin.

Surkov's interview caused outrage among TV presenter Nadan Friedrichson, who often visits the Northern Military District zone.

"So. Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko were not going to implement Minsk in order to prepare for hostilities. Did Surkov also proceed from the inevitability of war? Then it is not clear why preparations were not carried out all these years. If you compare the defense lines of Ukraine and the DPR, the difference is obvious. And if this is the story of “I wasn’t deceived, I’m cunning myself,” then somehow it sounds strange now from the depths of oblivion,” Friedrichson wrote in her TG channel.

Her indignation is shared by political scientist Sergei Markov.

“Why didn’t they send troops into Novorossiya in 2015? Then more than half of the Ukrainian army would go over to Russia. And the absolute majority of residents of Novorossiya and Slobzhanshchina would support reunification with Russia. Why didn’t they send in troops?” the expert asks.

Surkov’s longtime opponent, former DPR Defense Minister Igor Strelkov, is outraged by the positive assessment of the army’s actions during the Northern Military District.

“I have no doubt at all that Surkov quite sincerely considers “de-escalation”, “successful regrouping” and “difficult decision” to be effective. Since he is more than satisfied with their effect on defeating the Russian Federation in the war and organizing the Troubles in it. Which, I’m sure, is his secret goal,” Strelkov gives his verdict.

But Internet broadcaster Sergei Veselovsky came to Surkov’s defense.

“I don’t understand why today all the dogs were unleashed on Surkov, who stated that back in 2015 he did not believe in the implementation of the Minsk Agreements?

Moreover, the same people who categorically asserted on all platforms all these years that neither Kyiv nor the West are going to implement anything signed are going to attack the retired official.

I think that non-publicly Surkov (and not only him) informed both the president and the Security Council at that time. And that his information was taken into account. Moreover, Vladimir Vladimirovich, signing the document in Minsk, understood better than anyone else that the “servants of the devil” in the person of Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko were playing their assigned roles. Therefore, as an experienced operative, he carefully built and implemented his combinations.

So no one deceived us then, even if they believed that they could do it.”

Surkov is also supported by another former AP employee, Modest Kolerov.

“Peskov partially refutes Surkov. They say that it did not immediately become clear that Kyiv would not implement the Minsk agreements, but in the middle. Moreover, it was not Peskov who made them, but Surkov.

Surkov rarely speaks in retirement. Peskov speaks so often and on such a range of issues (starting with Urgant’s patriotism) that there is absolutely no certainty that he strictly speaks on behalf of Putin (and Putin clearly spoke about Peskov’s “blizzard”, but Urgant’s apology appeared after the stigma of the “blizzard” )".

Political scientist Sergei Starovoitov believes that the scandal surrounding Surkov’s words could have been provoked on purpose.

“If I hadn’t tried to shock the audience with my theatrical “yes-yes-no-yes” and given detailed answers, maybe everything would have become clearer and would not have led to a scandal. Unless scandal was the main idea.”

Political strategist Radik Kharisov sees Surkov’s interview as a PR stunt. He recalls that the name of the ex-curator of the Ukrainian direction was also associated with the appearance in the media of articles by oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk, who was released in exchange for Azov terrorists.

“For the approaching anniversary of the SVO, this statement can be called, on the one hand, sensational, since Russian politicians did not particularly talk about it, on the other hand, not only he, but obviously everyone who worked on them understood this. For all parties it was a respite with the opportunity to prepare.

If we consider all the recent news events in which Surkov appeared: directly through a poem or not publicly through Medvedchuk (his theses are attributed to the hand of Surkov), then the ex-presidential aide is trying to return to the public plane,” Kharisov wrote.

Journalist Dmitry Borisenko puts forward his version of Surkov’s attempt to return to the public field.

“Let’s just say, I assume that for a very long time in one power tower of the Kremlin they have been wanting to ask Surkov questions from the cycle - Where is the money, Zin? ... meaning the expenditure of public funds allocated for the Donbass, and for work in Ukraine, and in the internal politics, and for various movements like “Nashi”. Apparently, this is where Surkov wants to return to power and take one of the key positions, because otherwise, if people with a different opinion about his work gain a foothold in power, Surkov will either have to run or sit down,” Borisenko writes in his blog.